If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Are all sentient beings Bodhisattvas?

Dear all,
In the Pali canon ‘Bodhisattva’ appears to refer to the Buddha before his full awakening (the personality of the Jataka Tales, for example). But in the Mahayana all who have taken the Bodhisattva vows are Bodhisattvas.

My question is: if all sentient beings are Buddhas-to-be, does that mean that ALL sentient beings are Bodhisattvas?

Historically, "Bodhisattva" has a few meanings in Buddhism. Yes, there was Buddha in his earlier incarnations on the way to being, well, "Buddha" (even though he was, according to the Mahayana, Buddha all along, like the rest of us! ).

In the Mahayana, it came to be anyone who undertook the Vow to Save All Sentient Beings ... and that includes you and me in this Sangha. Not sure if that includes folks who did not take the Vow, or who are driven primarily by greed, anger and ignorance. I will let Buddhist Philosophers debate that one. Certainly, all of us have Buddha-Nature and Boddhisattva potential, even when hidden.

Then, of course, their are the Great "Maha-Boddhisattvas" ... Kannon, Manjusri and the rest. They could have chosen to become Buddha at any time (even though they were each Buddha all along too! ), but rather choose to remain in this mucky Samsara world until the last Sentient Being is saved (even though, of course, none of them really need saving ultimately cause they are Buddha all along too ... though not realizing so! The Bodhisattva's job is to help them realize so).

My question is: if all sentient beings are Buddhas-to-be, does that mean that ALL sentient beings are Bodhisattvas?

In my view, all sentient beings (humans, animals, rocks, trees) are Buddhas from the beginning (what beginning? ), not Buddhas-to-be. And Bodhisattva for me has the two meanings Jundo explains above.

Gassho,
Pontus

In a spring outside time, flowers bloom on a withered tree;
you ride a jade elephant backwards, chasing the winged dragon-deer;
now as you hide far beyond innumerable peaks--
the white moon, a cool breeze, the dawn of a fortunate day

Buddhas....Bodhisattvas....are all just labels, concepts....too many words...just put them all down....

I really like (I believe it was Hyon Gak Sunim) one teacher's explanation
of what a Buddha is and what a bodhisattva

A Bodhisattva is what awakens you. Whatever brings you back to the present moment, whatever pulls you out of your constant chasing of your thinking is a Bodhisattva
That which gets awakened to this is Buddha

All beings are Buddha... but I think it goes a little further than that.

Everything in the universe is Buddha and has Buddha nature. The rocks, the air, the mountains, the city, coffee, you and me.

The following note is for Dharma history geeks & wonks ONLY...

The vision that "all is Buddha", and that mountains and wall tiles and stones are also "sentient beings" having "Buddha nature", was likely not the Buddha's original vision and is probably a minority view among most Buddhists ... South Asian or Mahayana ... even today. Some early Zen (Chan) folks and the great Tendai (Tiantai) teachers in China developed the view. Possibly, there was the influence of Taoism and native Chinese sensibilities here, although arising from some statements in Sutras that "All is Buddha".

An essay by Taigen Leighton recently mentioned in the forum on Koan stories ascribed to Dongshan (said to be one of the founders of the Soto line) describes this ...

Dongshan first inquired about this question with the great teacher Guishan Lingyou (771-853; Jpn.: Isan Reiyû), who was to be considered founder of one of the other five houses of Chan. Dongshan repeated to Guishan a story he had heard about a lengthy exchange with a student by National Teacher Nanyang Huizhong (d. 776; Jpn.: Nan'yô Echû), who maintained that non-sentient beings did indeed expound the Dharma, constantly, radiantly, and unceasingly.[vi] Huizhong states, perhaps ironically, that fortunately he himself cannot hear the non-sentient beings expounding, because otherwise the student could not hear his teaching. The National Teacher provides a scriptural source for the expounding by non-sentient beings from the Avataµsaka Sûtra (Flower Ornament; Ch.: Huayan; Jpn.: Kegon), citing the passage, "The earth expounds Dharma, living beings expound it, throughout the three times, everything expounds it."[vii]

After narrating this story, Dongshan asked Guishan to comment, and Guishan raised his fly-whisk. When Dongshan failed to understand and asked for further explanation, Guishan averred that, "It can never be explained to you by means of one born of mother and father." Dongshan would later refer to such non-explanation with appreciation. Guishan finally suggested that Dongshan visit Yunyan for further illumination on this question.

This issue of non-sentient beings' relation to the Dharma had arisen over the previous couple centuries in Chinese Buddhist thought in relationship to the teaching of Buddha nature, which describes the potentiality for awakening in beings. This potentiality of Buddha nature is also sometimes presented as an aspect of the nature of reality itself. A century before Dongshan, Tiantai scholar Zhanran (711-782; Jpn.: Tannen) articulated the teaching potential of grasses and trees, traditionally seen as inanimate and thus inactive objects.[viii] Zhanran devoted an entire treatise to explicating the Buddha nature of non-sentient things, though previously the Sanlun school exegete Jizang (549-623; Jpn.: Kichizô) had argued that the distinction between sentient and non-sentient was empty, and not viable.[ix] Jizang says that if one denies Buddha nature to anything, "then not only are grasses and trees devoid of buddha-nature, but living beings are also devoid of buddha-nature."[x] Zhanran's view of non-sentient beings' Dharmic capacity reflected in part his interest in Huayan cosmology, with its vision of the world as a luminous ground of interconnectedness and with the mutual non-obstruction of particulars. This anticipated Guishan's citation of the Huayan Avatamsaka Sutra to Dongshan. Zhanran cited the Huayan school patriarch Fazang's dynamic view of "suchness according with conditions" to support his own teaching of the Buddha nature of non-sentient beings, and was the first to connect "the co-arising of suchness and the essential completeness of Buddha nature."[xi] For Zhanran, "the very colors and smells of the world around us constitute the Assembly of the Lotus [Sutra]; they are the immediate and undefiled expression of buddhahood."[xii] Thus a central inference of the discussion of non-sentient beings expounding the Dharma presented in Dongshan's stories is the limitation, and ultimate inaccuracy, of usual and conventional human notions of sentient and non-sentient, and of awareness.

...

A noteworthy implication of the historical background context to this story is the degree to which Chan discourse responds and comments on scholarly Chinese Buddhist teaching. This is so despite the widely proclaimed Chan slogan of "going beyond words and letters," attributed to Bodhidharma long after his lifetime. Sharf claims that the Chinese native philosophical concern with human "nature" contributed to this discussion in Chinese Buddhism. "I do not know of any Indian references to mundane objects such as roof tiles or stones becoming buddhas and preaching the dharma. In other words, the extension of buddha-nature to the insentient appears to have been a distinctively Chinese innovation."[xiii] According to recovered documents from Dunhuang, as early a Chan figure as the fourth patriarch, Daoxin (580-651; Jpn.: Dôshin) proclaims that walls, fences, tiles, and stones preach the dharma and so must possess buddha nature.[xiv] Nanyang Huizhong, cited by Dongshan, was considered the greatest Chan exponent of the Buddha nature of nonsentient beings. When asked whether "mind" and "nature" were different or not, he replied that, "To the deluded mind they are different; to the enlightened they are not different."[xv]

Returning to Dongshan's story, when he finally arrived at Yunyan after leaving Guishan he asked who was able to hear the Dharma expounded by non-sentient beings. Yunyan said that "Non-sentient begins are able to hear it." When asked if Yunyan could hear it, he told Dongshan that if he could, then Dongshan could not hear him. Then Dongshan asked why he could not hear it. Yunyan raised his fly-whisk, and then asked if Dongshan heard it yet. When Dongshan replied that he could not, Yunyan said, "You can't even hear when I expound the Dharma; how do you expect to hear when a non-sentient being expounds the Dharma?"[xvi]

Although there is no indication of any communication between Guishan and Yunyan aside from the person of Dongshan inquiring before them, Yunyan intriguingly performed the same action as Guishan, raising his fly-whisk. Rather than seeing this as an exotic example of mystical accord or extra-sensory perception between Guishan and Yunyan (they had no e-mail available), this exemplifies simply using what was at hand, literally. Such whisks were symbols of teaching authority and Dharma, commonly carried by Chan masters. But more directly, their whisk was the conventionally inanimate object most immediately on hand. If all non-sentient beings proclaim the Dharma, there was no need to seek further.

After the above exchange, Yunyan gave as scriptural citation for Dongshan not the Huayan Sutra, as did Nanyong Huizhong, but, interestingly for a Chan teacher, the Pure Land Amitabha Sutra, "Water birds, tree groves, all without exception recite the Buddha's name, recite the Dharma."[xvii] Thereupon Dongshan reflected on this, and composed a verse that he presented to Yunyan:

Dogen was a Tendai monk in his youth and remained greatly influenced by many of the Tendai Teachiings and Perspectives in his later life. Here is what he wrote in Shobogenzo-Mujo-Seppo, tossing the whole vision of Sentient vs. Insentient into the funky-electric Buddha-blender in Dogen's Jazzy, syncopated Way ...

To snatch away the voices of the sentient realm and liken them to the voices of the insentient realm is not the way of the buddha. The insentient preaching the dharma is not necessarily sound, just as preaching the dharma by the sentient is not sound. We should make concentrated effort to study this a while, asking ourselves, asking others, what is “the sentient,” “what is the insentient”?

Such being the case, we should carefully put our minds to and study in what manner it is that the insentient preach the dharma. One who considers, as the foolish think, that the rustling branches of the forests, the opening and falling of leaves and flowers, are the insentient preaching the dharma — this is not a man who studies the buddha dharma. If this were the case, who could not know the preaching of the insentient, who could not hear the preaching of the insentient? We should reflect a while. In the realm of the insentient, are there grasses, trees and forests? Is the realm of the insentient mixed into the realm of the sentient? Still, those who consider grasses and trees, tiles and pebbles as the insentient have not studied extensively; those who consider the insentient as grasses and trees, tiles and pebbles have not studied their fill. Even if, for now, we were to accept the plants seen by humans and treat them as the insentient, grasses and trees are also not what is fathomed by common thinking. Why? There is a vast difference between the forests of the heavens and those among humans; what grows in central countries and marginal lands is not the same; the grasses and trees in the ocean and in the mountains are all dissimilar. Not to mention that there are forests growing in the sky, forests growing in the clouds. Of the hundred grasses and myriad trees that grow in wind, fire, and the rest, there are in general those that should be studied as sentient, those that are not recognized as insentient. There are grasses and trees that are like humans and beasts; whether they are sentient or insentient is not clear. Not to mention the trees and rocks, flowers and fruits, hot and cold waters of the transcendents — though when we see them we have no doubts, when we would explain them, is it not difficult?

Later Chinese innovation or not, this vision of "Everything in the universe is Buddha and /hasis Buddha nature" speaks to my heart too, and rings true.

But are all things just labels and concepts? What about 'murder' and 'kindness', 'war' or 'terrorism'? Do these labels matter? Do they refer to something in the real world? Are they therefore more than just labels? Does language matter in some way from the perspective of conventional truth? Can we so easily just dismiss them as labels?

In my view, as long as we can see past the labels, there's nothing wrong with them. We couldn't function in our everyday lives without categorizing and labeling things. We do so effortlessly and automatically. One person's murder is another persons kindness. One person's terrorism is another person's fight for what is right and true. But when we believe that the ideas, the labels, are an objective, permanent truth, that's where we're deluding ourselves in my opinion. We need to be able to sometimes drop all labels and see what is, without judgement. Then, when we start labeling again, perhaps we do so a little more wisely and less categorically, mindful of the Buddha's mind in the background of the monkey mind.

Thank you for your questions, they are most helpful.

/Pontus

Last edited by Omoi Otoshi; 11-01-2012 at 08:47 AM.

In a spring outside time, flowers bloom on a withered tree;
you ride a jade elephant backwards, chasing the winged dragon-deer;
now as you hide far beyond innumerable peaks--
the white moon, a cool breeze, the dawn of a fortunate day

But are all things just labels and concepts? What about 'murder' and 'kindness', 'war' or 'terrorism'? Do these labels matter? Do they refer to something in the real world? Are they therefore more than just labels? Does language matter in some way from the perspective of conventional truth? Can we so easily just dismiss them as labels?

Respectfully in gassho,
Myozan

Are you under the impression that Buddhism is just a philosophy? Supposing for a moment that people actually made decisions along lines of philosophy instead of whatever haphazard clusterfuck of imprints, subconscious messaging, outright manipulation, and karmic echoes that are bee-bopping around in their minds - supposing all that, would a philosophical line of rules be found that could be considered cogent and workable?

The philosophy and boundaries of Buddhism are about as refined and elegant a set of boundaries as you are likely to find - and yet, they don't quite encapsulate the truth - and real liberation requires a suspension (not necessarily permanent) of preconditioned assumptions. I don't think it's so much that these concepts have no meaning, it's simply that they don't encapsulate the actual reality of each moment as it's being lived.

Thanks Pontus and Chet.
Nothing is just a philosophy, not even philosophy. It is never cut off from life lived in the moment, although it is a common misconception that it is, in my view. Do we discount all the sutras as mere philosophy? I think they are living and breathing. They are my lungs and the air in my lungs.

Thanks Pontus and Chet.
Nothing is just a philosophy, not even philosophy. It is never cut off from life lived in the moment, although it is a common misconception that it is, in my view. Do we discount all the sutras as mere philosophy? I think they are living and breathing. They are my lungs and the air in my lungs.

Gassho,
Myozan

PS: please take my questions with salt and a little vinegar. :-)

Myozan - I LOVE your questions! It's not bad to think about these things, I think.

The sutras are the corpses of other persons' living and breathing minds - but they are reborn in our lives in our honest contemplation of them - and also our dropping of them.

Jundo (and everyone),
But are all things just labels and concepts? What about 'murder' and 'kindness', 'war' or 'terrorism'? Do these labels matter? Do they refer to something in the real world? Are they therefore more than just labels? Does language matter in some way from the perspective of conventional truth? Can we so easily just dismiss them as labels?

When the Tesshu was a young man he called on the Zen master Dokuon. Wishing to impress Dokuon he said, “The mind, the Buddha, and all sentient beings after all do not exist. The true nature of phenomenon is emptiness. There is no realisation, no delusion, no sagacity, no mediocrity, nothing to give and nothing to receive.

Dokuon promptly hit him with a bamboo stick. Tesshu became quite furious.
Dokuon said quietly: “If nothing exists, where did this anger come from?”

This thread and the question of ...who is a Bodhisattva? ....is a bit confusing for me... but "All is Buddha Nature" is not so confusing..

This statement by Dogen...

To snatch away the voices of the sentient realm and liken them to the voices of the insentient realm is not the way of the buddha. The insentient preaching the dharma is not necessarily sound, just as preaching the dharma by the sentient is not sound. We should make concentrated effort to study this a while, asking ourselves, asking others, what is “the sentient,” “what is the insentient”?

Such being the case, we should carefully put our minds to and study in what manner it is that the insentient preach the dharma. One who considers, as the foolish think, that the rustling branches of the forests, the opening and falling of leaves and flowers, are the insentient preaching the dharma — this is not a man who studies the buddha dharma. If this were the case, who could not know the preaching of the insentient, who could not hear the preaching of the insentient? We should reflect a while. In the realm of the insentient, are there grasses, trees and forests? Is the realm of the insentient mixed into the realm of the sentient? Still, those who consider grasses and trees, tiles and pebbles as the insentient have not studied extensively; those who consider the insentient as grasses and trees, tiles and pebbles have not studied their fill. Even if, for now, we were to accept the plants seen by humans and treat them as the insentient, grasses and trees are also not what is fathomed by common thinking. Why? There is a vast difference between the forests of the heavens and those among humans; what grows in central countries and marginal lands is not the same; the grasses and trees in the ocean and in the mountains are all dissimilar. Not to mention that there are forests growing in the sky, forests growing in the clouds. Of the hundred grasses and myriad trees that grow in wind, fire, and the rest, there are in general those that should be studied as sentient, those that are not recognized as insentient. There are grasses and trees that are like humans and beasts; whether they are sentient or insentient is not clear. Not to mention the trees and rocks, flowers and fruits, hot and cold waters of the transcendents — though when we see them we have no doubts, when we would explain them, is it not difficult?

...appears like this to me... All is "one suchness", but trees are not people and people are not trees. Trees sprout leaves and people preach the Dharma , they are "not two" but shouldn't be confused. Therefore when a person preaches the Dharma, trees preach the Dharma, and when a tree sprouts leaves, people sprouts leaves. Even though people don't sprout leaves and trees don't speak. Not-two, yet not confused..

Just blathering..

Gassho, kojip. Ed. Mu!

Last edited by Daizan; 11-01-2012 at 11:40 AM.

As a trainee I ask that all comments by me on matters of Dharma be taken with "a grain of salt".

Another thought on this:
When everything is dependent-arising - how could anything not have Buddha nature?

Buddha nature is not something that needs to be intellectualized about, but yes, I agree. It's either all or none. If we agree that no thing has a separate, permanent existance and that all things arise (co-)dependently, then nothing has (is) buddha nature or everything has (is) buddha nature. You can't separate the dogs from saints. I prefer to say that all is buddha (nature), because it's not like our nature is something we can have or not have. We can't choose to have reality. We are reality. Buddha nature is the potential, the positive aspect of emptiness, in my intellectual view. And when I drop that, it just is what it is.

Gassho,
Pontus

In a spring outside time, flowers bloom on a withered tree;
you ride a jade elephant backwards, chasing the winged dragon-deer;
now as you hide far beyond innumerable peaks--
the white moon, a cool breeze, the dawn of a fortunate day

...This statement by Dogen...
"...There are grasses and trees that are like humans and beasts; whether they are sentient or insentient is not clear. Not to mention the trees and rocks, flowers and fruits, hot and cold waters of the transcendents — though when we see them we have no doubts, when we would explain them, is it not difficult?"

Personally, I think the whole argument is a moot point: trees and grasses, wind and water are already Fully and Wholly one with Nature; they have no need to become awakened to the nature that is already theirs. Would a tree have regrets holding it back from seeing reality as it is? Or a fox, for that matter? I think not; man's mind seems to be the only one capable of hiding its true Nature from itself.

Originally Posted by Omoi Otoshi

...We couldn't function in our everyday lives without categorizing and labeling things. We do so effortlessly and automatically.

We label things to be able to describe them to others. It is inexplicably tied in with our language and heritage. Doesn't make them good or bad, they just are.

I feel that the true meaning of (Big B) "Buddha" and "Bodhisattva" is not to be approached with a philosopher's intellectual scalpel, but with a poet's soft heart. Buddhist philosophers of old may have debated and refined their definitions, much as a Western philosopher might try to define "God" or "the Good" ... or a physicist might try to come up with the exact equation capturing some physical property. It is not like that.

Maybe it would take the sensibilities of a Walt Whitman to sing of the Bodhisattva (from "Song of Myself") ...

I know I have the best of time and space -- and that I was never measured, and
never will be measured

I tramp a perpetual journey,
My signs are a rain-proof coat and good shoes and a staff cut from the woods;
No friend of mine takes his ease in my chair,
I have no chair, nor church nor philosophy;
I lead no man to a dinner-table or library or exchange,
But each man and each woman of you I lead upon a knoll,
My left hand hooks you round the waist,
My right hand points to landscapes of continents, and a plain public road.

Not I, not any one else can travel that road for you,
You must travel it yourself

It is not far . . . . it is within reach,
Perhaps you have been on it since you were born, and did not know,
Perhaps it is every where on water and on land.

Shoulder your duds, and I will mine, and let us hasten forth;
Wonderful cities and free nations we shall fetch as we go.

If you tire, give me both burdens, and rest the chuff of your hand on my hip,
And in due time you shall repay the same service to me;
For after we start we never lie by again.

This day before dawn I ascended a hill and looked at the crowded heaven,
And I said to my spirit, When we become the enfolders of those orbs and the pleasure
and knowledge of every thing in them, shall
we be filled and satisfied then?
And my spirit said No, we level that lift to pass and continue beyond.

You are also asking me questions, and I hear you;
I answer that I cannot answer . . . . you must find out for yourself.

If you tire, give me both burdens, and rest the chuff of your hand on my hip,
And in due time you shall repay the same service to me;
For after we start we never lie by again.

Beautiful.

Gassho,
Pontus

In a spring outside time, flowers bloom on a withered tree;
you ride a jade elephant backwards, chasing the winged dragon-deer;
now as you hide far beyond innumerable peaks--
the white moon, a cool breeze, the dawn of a fortunate day

I feel that the true meaning of (Big B) "Buddha" and "Bodhisattva" is not to be approached with a philosopher's intellectual scalpel, but with a poet's soft heart. Buddhist philosophers of old may have debated and refined their definitions, much as a Western philosopher might try to define "God" or "the Good" ... or a physicist might try to come up with the exact equation capturing some physical property. It is not like that.

The philosopher's scalpel peels off Buddha Nature, and leaves nothing behind. It is the same scalpel that , for me, peeled off Brahman and God, and cause/effect, and causeless cause..etc.... and lead to putting down these ideas, and instead looking into reaching and grasping and dukkha. It was only after practicing dukkha and cessation of dukkha, that the poet's heart has been freed to enjoy (big B) Buddha without becoming trapped by Buddha. It has been freed to enjoy a lot, and it has taken a while.

Gassho.kojip

Last edited by Daizan; 11-02-2012 at 10:14 AM.

As a trainee I ask that all comments by me on matters of Dharma be taken with "a grain of salt".

I feel that the true meaning of (Big B) "Buddha" and "Bodhisattva" is not to be approached with a philosopher's intellectual scalpel, but with a poet's soft heart. Buddhist philosophers of old may have debated and refined their definitions, much as a Western philosopher might try to define "God" or "the Good" ... or a physicist might try to come up with the exact equation capturing some physical property. It is not like that.

Maybe it would take the sensibilities of a Walt Whitman to sing of the Bodhisattva (from "Song of Myself") ...

I know I have the best of time and space -- and that I was never measured, and
never will be measured

I tramp a perpetual journey,
My signs are a rain-proof coat and good shoes and a staff cut from the woods;
No friend of mine takes his ease in my chair,
I have no chair, nor church nor philosophy;
I lead no man to a dinner-table or library or exchange,
But each man and each woman of you I lead upon a knoll,
My left hand hooks you round the waist,
My right hand points to landscapes of continents, and a plain public road.

Not I, not any one else can travel that road for you,
You must travel it yourself

It is not far . . . . it is within reach,
Perhaps you have been on it since you were born, and did not know,
Perhaps it is every where on water and on land.

Shoulder your duds, and I will mine, and let us hasten forth;
Wonderful cities and free nations we shall fetch as we go.

If you tire, give me both burdens, and rest the chuff of your hand on my hip,
And in due time you shall repay the same service to me;
For after we start we never lie by again.

This day before dawn I ascended a hill and looked at the crowded heaven,
And I said to my spirit, When we become the enfolders of those orbs and the pleasure
and knowledge of every thing in them, shall
we be filled and satisfied then?
And my spirit said No, we level that lift to pass and continue beyond.

You are also asking me questions, and I hear you;
I answer that I cannot answer . . . . you must find out for yourself.

Thank you for posting WW, Jundo. I used to carry his little hard back book in my car for years and read it while waiting for various car maintenance. And of course i did leave it once and later discovered that when my next maintenance was needed, oh damn, just a book and replaceable (i think i lost spell check and that is dangerous!). He was quite profound!

I have given up on trying to intellectualize the Dharma. I'm certainly not scholarly when it comes to discussions such as this but do enjoy reading everyone's questions and responses. Which came first, the Buddha or the Bodhisattva? . Jundo, you have a wonderful knack to boil these questions down to their essence so simple Zen Buddhists like myself can make sense of it all.
Gassho, Shawn.

Gassho, Shawn Jakudo Hinton
It all begins when we say, “I”. Everything that follows is illusion.
"Even to speak the word Buddha is dragging in the mud soaking wet; Even to say the word Zen is a total embarrassment."
寂道